Wikipedia
is a free encyclopedia which in
theory is the product of thousands
of readers contributing freely their
own knowledge and expertise. Certain
controversial subjects have however
apparently been locked to prevent
outsiders from amending the entries
further without a consensus of a
panel of self-appointed experts. One
such subject is the British writer
David Irving, on whom
universally hostile entries are to
be found in every language version
of Wikipedia; it is no surprise to
find that there is one community
behind the universal effort to smear
him, as Tom
Holzel,
one of the more objective outside
editors, reports.

He
provides here typical exchanges that
he has had with rival editors, who
instantly destroy and delete
whatever positive changes he makes
to the David Irving entry.

I reply: "I will post that image on my
website [above], if 'they' try to
take it down. Please keep me closely informed.
As for the [Wikipedia] photo caption
[above], it does not mention that
the Judge agreed that in several points
Lipstadt had lied in her book -- e.g.
claiming that I consorted with Hizbollah
terorrists, that I have a life size portrait of
Hitler in my study, and that I stole or
damaged the microfiches of the Goebbels diaries
in the Moscow archives. Under Section 5 of the
UK Defamation Act, these smears however were
considered outweighed by the highly damaging
'Holocaust denier' libel which claim by me was
not sustained. I wonder if she removed the
libels from later editions?"

An hour later, Tom H. reports:

As
expected, my insert was quickly removed. Here
is my complaint to the editors on that
action: -- [not posted]

January
6, 2010 (Wednesday)Windsor
(England)

Wikipedia editors respond to Holzel
furious about his description of them as "a
cabal of religious zealots":

You have again described the editors of this
article as "a cabal of religious zealots".
First, when BBC News ("Holocaust denier to be
released") and The Guardian ("Holocaust denier
Irving freed early from prison") refer to Irving
as a "Holocaust denier", is that because they're
also part of that "cabal of religious zealots"?
Are they also committing a "terrorist act"? Was
Justice Gray also part of that "cabal of
religious zealots"? Did he also commit a
"terrorist act"? Second, I strongly urge you to
re-factor your comments, and remove all
reference to Wikipedia editors. WP:CIVIL is no
joke, learn to communicate civilly. Jayjg (talk)
04:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC) If I might cut in
here, our biggest problem in maintaining
neutrality is the overuse of quotations. I would
much rather see editorialising than a he
said/she said approach to writing about
historical debates. Please get clear consensus
(at least ten editors in favour) to add any
quotes, no matter how authoritative the source
may be. Ottre 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Holzel to editors: Well, I give up. I
can see that no matter how many historians you
allow yourself to use in the article to say the
Irving is not an historian, me adding a
single highly respected counter-argument is not
going to be permitted. The only complaint you
didn't use is that my exculpatory evidence is
"unbalanced." And the way you dwell on secondary
complaints, centered not on the issue but on my
uncivility in order not to reply to the crux of
the issue -- well it shows that you are really
expert at your job: Master Propagandist cruising
under the false colors of a disinterested
editor. I hope it pays well.Tholzel (talk)
14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[[The newspapers they
mention and the BBC have long stopped calling
me a Holocaust denier because of the legal
risks.]]

"Repeated attacks on Jews"?? Is that what you
guys call my disagreeing with the "editors" of
this anti-Irving diatribe? Why didn't you say
you were Jewish? Then I would have understood
why you are totally unable to present Irving's
biography in a neutral, disinterested
manner.Tholzel (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2010
(UTC)

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Holzel's response to the Wikipedia
panel:

I will gladly answer these questions, but I
must say, your answer takes my breath away.

1) This is not an encyclopedia
article. It is text proofing taken to a high
art. Every point made by the "article" is
there to denigrate -- not describe -- an
historian of considerable merit in his field.
After using 5,300 words of ten historians
criticizing Irving's professionalism, I try
to add a single paragraph by Justice Gray
(whom you quote liberally when it suits you)
to give counter evidence that essentially
negates much of these complaints against
Irving -- and you find that single 211 word
paragraph by this expert too long???

2) This article is a professional hatchet
job because it has been produced not by an
amalgam of contributors as Wiki contributions
are supposed to be created, but by a cabal of
religious zealots whose entire interest is to
besmirch David Irving. Wiki contributors are
specifically told not to contribute if they
mind being challenged and contradicted. But
there is no warning that certain sites like
this one are off-limits to contributors, and
which is watched over by a secret priesthood
that has taken over complete control of the
entire article. Not kosher!

Further evidence of its professional
single-source construction can be gleaned by
comparing it to a similar article, the one on
"Holocaust denial." Here we find the exact
same construction -- liberal quotes by
experts, a lengthy footnote list, references,
etc., etc. A really professional job, and by
such coincidence, exactly of the same ilk as
the Irving article.

3) You continually come back to the same
uncivil tactic: "Are you saying (insert
something I did not say into my mouth)
because if you did (insert threat)?"
How can we discuss Irving if everything
anyone says who disagrees with you is
uncivil, and only what you say, is
permissible. It is looming censorship of the
worst type.

4) Now that I have answered your
questions, perhaps you will ask the question
that you have coolly dodged for several days
now: What is Holocaust denial? If you cannot
even answer that -- and you have used the
usual tricks to not do so -- not relevant,
see another 10,000 word article we wrote --
how can you claim Irving is one? Most of the
claims in the article are innuendo, a
mish-mash of alleged anti-Semitism (is
anti-Semitism Holocaust denial?), and massive
guilt by association (it is unbelievable how
many Nazi portraits grace a biography of this
Englishman). Of course you get away with this
because you never say what Holocaust denial
is. Or put another way, it's whatever you say
it is, plus whatever critics you've lined up
say it is.

It is not an answer to say he lost at a
trial. It is not an answer to say he sued and
not the other way around, as if being accused of
being a Holocaust denier was in the same league
as being called daft. Holocaust denial is a
crime in many countries, so calling Irving one
-- without having to say what that means -- is a
terrorist act. If I were to call you a child
molester, I suspect you would sue me. Then you
would be doing the suing, just as Irving had to
do the suing, to try to clear his name.

So I believe you are absolutely wrong in
refusing to allow that short quotation by
Justice Gray in the article. I find it utterly
incomprehensible that you can blithely brush-off
this insertion of trenchant counter evidence by
a neutral authority just because his expert
testimony happens to negate much of what your
article tries to put over on the public. That is
exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to allow.

I have replied to Holzel:

I sympathise with them but only up to a
point. The quote [from Mr Justice Gray's
Judgment] was meant to clarify one issue,
namely the oft repeated argument that "David
Irving is not an historian." You over-egged the
cake. Their highly paid ($500,000) professional
expert Professor Richard Evans stated so
explicitly in his evidence. On this point he was
emphatically contradicted by the Judgment. Hence
the importance of the quote. Also: the Judge
found that Lipstadt did lie about me on
important matters (Hitler painting, Hizbollah
ties, Goebbels microfiches). Try again!

February
8, 2010 (Monday)Windsor
(England)

Holzel has this morning sent me an update on
his struggle to get Wikipedia to balance their
entry on me properly:

WELL, as you can imagine, you are
right -- I was completely and professionally
rebuffed by the cabal of ideological zealots
who run Wikipedia.
NOTHING I could
suggest was considered acceptable. When I
pointed out that 80% of the commentary about
you was negative and 4% positive compared to
34% negative for the bio of Josef
Stalin, this was considered irrelevant
and certainly no sign of bias.

I was duly banned for "Repeated attack on
Jews," even though the complaint in the
discussion section was that I was attacking
the editors. And, that I had no idea of the
religion of the editors. How I could be
guilty of attacking Jews if they were not
Jewish was never made clear.

It is a masterpiece of dissimulation. But,
subsequent inquiries about whether I could
make a case against the editors made me
realize that the organization has been taken
over by Talmudic scholars who will always
find fault with your argument, and are blind
to their own faults.

Any way, I enjoyed the battle for the sake
of freedom of speech. I was foolish to think
that this modern innovation would have any
effect on an entrenched, ancient prior
philosophy.

"The Jewish Internet Defense Force
(JIDF) is a pro-Israel advocacy
organization which shares news and
information to members and supporters
through email, Facebook, YouTube,
Twitter, Myspace, Digg, and other
popular areas of the Internet... For
the most part, however, Facebook's
response was less clear-cut, according
to David, a leading JIDF member who
asked that his last name to be
withheld, citing repeated death threats
he and other group members have
received by email since their actions
became public."

David Irving writes: I suspect
that "David" has himself written the whole
heroic page. Who can out him? Photo, name,
address, phone number, e-mail? The same nasty
tactics his ilk use against their opponents
-- plus of course the pepper spray, baseball
bat, black cladding,and ski masks which they
use but which most of us historians seem to
find dispensable.

Temporary
donations use PayPal: the legend tragicmime21
is authorised by us